Urgent - 2nd Consultation Period For Vic Breeding Code Of Practice End

[Linda K]

Sorry if this is a topic already covered elsewhere, but have not seen anything near the top of any of the subforums, so wanted to make sure the information was out there.

In case anyone is unaware, the Vic gov is still reviewing the draft code of operation for breeding and rearing practices. Since the original draft in April, they had received numerous submissions from breeders of both cats and dogs, showing why some sections of what was being proposed was unworkable. After having meeting with both Dog and cat breeding representatives, things that were just ridiculous in the code were changed - on the cat front for instance, an original requirement was that all cats needed to be examined on a regular basis for signs of FIP, any cats with symptoms to be treated under vet care, and the disease investigated to determine the source. Sounds reasonable, given FIP is a big killer of cats, however at the moment there is no treatment other than supportive while the cat dies, as it has no cure, no vaccine, and diagnosis is only confirmed via postmortem, and once a cat has it, it is fatal. The virus causing it is actually a virus 90% of cats carry, just in some, when they undergo a stress event (which can be as simple as the owners moving), and are genetically predisposed, it can then mutate into FIP and kill the cat - and in others may just have the cat suffering flu like symptoms that it recovers from completely with no ill effects. Why the difference is not yet understood, and there is no way to predetermine which cats may be at risk and which aren't. So the original draft suggestion was ludicrous, as the only way to know if a cattery had FIP would be to kill all the cats and do post mortems. Amongst some of the other proposals in the draft was the need for the queen and kittens to be seen by a vet within a week from birth. This was quite reasonably changed on the grounds that week old kittens would be very susecptible to being transported off to the vets with mum, just for her to have a checkup when she is perfectly fine, just to have a piece of paper signed to say so, and this was exposing them to unnecessary risks which could be fatal, and was altered to having her examined by a vet at the same time as the kittens going for their first vaccination, since at that stage they are then being vaccinated so not at as much risk. I cannot speak on what the dog proposals are that were changed, however since the RSPCA rebuttal on just the dog section is 20 pages worth, I am guessing there is more than a few things they are now agitated about, so if you have not yet doneso, worth reading just to see what you are up against. .

But now, the RSPCA (who obviously were unaware that a second round of talks had occured with the cat and dog groups), and are not happy about that, has actually been joined by groups such as Oscars Law, Pet's Haven, Pugs SOS to name but a few, and all are out there waging one of the fiercest and most intense social media campaigns I have seen, getting all their supporters to flood Minister Walsh's personal email box, as well as the DePI one (which is where submissions needed to be sent), in order to overturn every single change that the dog and cat groups argued for and won out on.

If you want to have your voice heard out against what the AR agitators are calling for, NOW is the time to get off your backside - submissions must be in by 9am Wednesday 14 August. If nothing is said by breeders, and the only voices coming in are those from the nut jobs and the RSPCA, who want offal feeding banned again, maximum breeding ages reinstated etc then that will be what the minister may then choose to change things back to, just to give them peace and quiet. However the word from the Ministers office was that if the breeders have a show of support behind what the changes have been, even if the comment is only to endorse why a change that has been made is important, then that will be listened to, since we are the ones that the code affects. If you want to see in detail what the RSPCA are oppsoing with their submission, you can view it here - My link You need to go to the bottom of the page where they have the button to read their submission

To send in your own submission to the DePI, the email is [email protected] All submissions must include name and address, and preference will be given to anything coming from Vic. Cutoff for submissions is 9am Wed morning

Please, the breeders of pedigree cats and dogs need your voices - without them, the AR nutters who are flooding Peter Walsh's email with calls for breeding to be limited to 1 litter every 2 years, and no more than 5 animals at all to be owned by any breeder might just be the only ones heard, and it will be the end of breeding here.

[Leema]

For those who need help in starting your response, Maggie's Farm has one online that you can copy/paste/modify.

http://www.maggiesfarm.info/2013/08/04/victorian-code-of-practice-on-breeding-and-rearing/

[Linda K]

and so you can see what Oscars Law had to say about it (and what you also need to fight against), here is their submission http://www.oscarslaw.org/images/uploaded/Submission%20Code%20Review%20Second%20Public%20Comment.pdf

What they are wanting has no basis on husbandry experience with animals, and in many cases, is totally different to what they have as their own code (for instance their stance against the euthansias clause, when it is WORD FOR WORD what is in the pound and shelter code. Or the fact they want no unpaid volunteer staff to be working at a breeding establishment, or for those to be family members, they must all be paid employees. Am guessing many shelters would be cactus if they could not rely on a chain of unpaid volunteer helpers, foster careers etc - the regular cries from Pets Haven for food, litter, bedding, volunteer "staff" members etc tends to spring to mind here, also the comments from Pets Haven about the lack of exact wording about what constitutes good nutritional value food on their own FB page about this code - laughable when one considers their own arguments about why they feed cheap supermarket food at their own shelters, that being it is the most economical for them.

[mita]

Good on you for encouraging people, especially the registered breeders, to make further comment.

Pity that the groups with a range of interests.... except the Pet Industry... can't be put together for a while & not let out until they'd identified what common objections they have... & what they'd rather see in such a Code. Then look at their differences & try to understand them... & find where they could concede.

I have concerns in terms of welfare of animals & what the breeding of dogs offers pet owners.

The RSPCA's covered many of the basic welfare points.

But the RSPCA's admitted they've rolled over on the question of scale of animals kept.

The research is in....puppies coming from large-scale commercial operations tend to go on to have more health & behavioural problems. So keeping dogs for breeding on the scale of hundreds should just not be on.

Puppies do better coming from home-style, non-commercial breeders. But the numbers range should be open to discussion. In a family/hobby setting with adequate provisions ... a total of 5 is setting it needlessly low, by a long shot!

I have other objections, too. The Code is clueless about socialisation. And the minimal time per week for a dog to be let free of containment, would be considered cruelty in my state. Also how animals can be PTS is open to interpretation... seriously so.

PTS should be at the hands of a vet.

Anyone wanting a comparison with how another country's done it... scroll down to the UK's requirements on breeding establishments (neat summary for the N. Ireland Amendments).

Far more enlightened than the Victorian proposed Code, in relation to socialization, stimulation, encouragement of 'normal' behaviour, exercise & welfare generally.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nidsr/2013/9780337989957

Edited August 12, 2013 by mita

[Steve]

Biggest one for me is the way they have worked out staff to dog ratios means one person can be in charge of over 100 dogs at any one time!

Once again all it will do is make it easier to breed huge amounts of puppies commercially.

[stellnme]

Quite a few points that need to be changed in my opinion. The worst one for me is that any method of euthanasia is deemed okay as long as it is humane - but they fail to define humane, which can be interpreted as shooting or blunt force trauma, or whatever they want to do really. Who will know what they do. I agree Mita, euthanasia should be done by a vet by injection.

How can one person look after 100 dogs at a time, and this includes those whelping who can be left alone overnight according to this. I seriously wonder what people were thinking when the code was drafted.

[mita]

Steve, my guess is that the lobbying of the Pet Industry has hit all the 'right' buttons for the State Government. It's a business breeding puppies to be companion animals... & that means jobs to them, and contributes to the economy. So the main intent of the Code is to bend over backwards to make legal, the commercial farming of large numbers of dogs. Magic words.... business, jobs, money into the economy.

I'm so sorry the RSPCA rolled over on that one. They say they had to admit defeat & had to require instead that large scale puppy farming be as humane as possible. Except by very definition, it's inhumane. You'd have to call in a magician to make it humane.

So no wonder they have a raft of objections to the draft Code.

Stellnme, one big RSPCA objection is the open invitation to do anything to euthanize, so long as the person regards it as 'humane'. Seems on an ABC radio interview it was pointed out to the Minister that someone could think bludgeoning over the head is fine. Frankly, it's legalizing behaviour that's linked with personality disorders. And which is usually regarded as a red light alarm in the community... because it's also linked with violence towards people.

Frankly, I'd like to see CHOICE (Australian Consumers' Association) get on the Vic Government's back. They have a webpage advising people how to get a companion puppy or dog. Their 2 prongs are....buying from where dogs' welfare is attended to & from a source that produces quality in health & behavioral temperament. The US research found that large scale, commercial puppy farming does neither.

Edited August 12, 2013 by mita

[stellnme]

Exactly. These are forms of killing a dog which would bring charges and convictions in any other field of animal welfare - why would they think it humane to use blunt force trauma (bludgeoning) to euthanize. Not saying that everyone would use this method but it sure leaves the way open to do so.

[Linda K]

so one thing to consider though is what about the option where say a fire has come through, or other emergency, and animals are hurt and suffering - are you really going to say it is better to wait for all these animals to be taken to a vet to receive a needle, or at least have this as a contingency that euthanasias can be carried out by other means, so long as they are humane? I totally agree though that exactly what is considered as "humane" needs to be defined.

I would again though point out that the Pounds and Shelter code of practice, reviewed in 2011, has this as the section of the code that those groups (including the RSPCA) operate under for euthanasing animals " The preferred method of euthanasia is barbiturate overdose, which must be carried out by a veterinary practitioner. Any method of euthanasia must be carried out humanely" This is EXACTLY the same wording that is in the breeder code. For some reason though, it is deemed by all the rescue groups and the RSPCA that this is wording that is perfectly fine for their code as theya are all fine upstanding people that would never use anything but the green dream, (not looking at Mildura pound and the constant shooting of their animals, are we), but not for a breeder code. The continual double standards of these people is staggering.

The RSPCA in their submission also suggests that AI for cats would be a far better option to keeping tom cats long term - from a welfare point of view, it is absolutely staggering that they could even suggest this as within cats, the process is incredibly invasive, cannot be done without the use of electrodes and general anasthetics for both male and females, which can be a significant health risk, particularly for certain breeds. Yet that is a "kinder" option?

[mita]

The double standard would have to disappear if a process around 'humane' methods was written into the Code. As it would then become the legal standard. One first step in any such process would be to differentiate between Emergency PTS and Planned PTS.

What constitutes an Emergency would need to be spelled out, along with the methods.... & who can be responsible. Should require a written report by that person, following any such act. That would then also clearly differentiate it from any person in the community deciding to kill a companion animal for their own pathological reasons.

Planned PTS should go straight to green needle by a vet.

Edited August 13, 2013 by mita

[Steve]

the reality is that no code can over ride the legislation and they have introduced several things into this proposed code which is in conflict with the legislation and makes it in consistent - impossible to police and all it does is ask for everyone to be confused.

You cant just say in a code that people who breed working dogs and those who breed dogs which are for hunting one species of deer get to not comply because in the legislation they have to unless they belong to an applicable organisation.

Magically if you own one dog more than the legislated 3 without being a Vic dogs member or one dog more than 10 if you are a Vic dogs member you have to do everything differently . Under this amount when you breed them and what you breed them with , how you house them and feed them is up to you but one more dog and you are controlled - its stupid. With this code If you breed working dogs you can have hundreds of them and no need to comply with any part of the code.

Telling someone they cant feed their dog offal if they own 11 - but they can if they own 10 and they are Vic dogs members is akin to saying if a mother has 3 kids she can feed them liver but if she has 4 - not allowed. Fact is if they feed offal that goes through a human butchery there is no risk anyway so why prohibit and only prohibit it over a certain number ? Mad.

then of course you look at the fact that you have no choice you have to have your dogs examined once a year but you are still not able to determine what you will mate and when in conjunction with your vet and its recommended with no science to back any of it up.

In all honesty if it wasn't so serious it would be funny - who ever the public servants were who are responsible for this need a good kick in the bum.

It allows for no litters past 6 litters for a bitch no matter what variables exist or how healthy she is yet you only have to check pendulous ears ONCE A WEEK! You cant allow a male dog to mate before he is one regardless of breed or variables if he is deemed ready but you can have up to 150 dogs with one staff member .

The entire submission which is referenced as supposedly supporting research is horribly flawed - one in particular they cite is simply an article written by a vet and he specifically says that what was in it shouldn't be used to draft legislation!

The system they used to work out number of hours and staff ratios is full on crazy - takes no account of design of the kennel and how far staff may have to walk between buildings etc , breed requirements , handling times etc .

How could anyone want a situation where a code says you only have to touch one of your dogs when you want to and not daily????

Bits about guarantees is inconsistent with fair trade laws - another legislative pain - as I said if it wasnt so serious we could all laugh at the ignorant public servant who presented it and the minister for not understanding his own current legislation.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Steve

[Steve]

And - lets say Im Vic dogs member and I own 12 beagles - Beagles love to live in a pack and as a breeder I look for no dog aggression etc - everybody living together with no issues as they have done for centuries .I love watching them all play and run snuggle up together at night and they thrive on being a member of the pack and as well as spending time with their humans. Now if I own 10 they can all live together without a problem but if I own 11 I have to be sure I never have more than 4 of them together .This code wants to allow someone who breeds dogs for hunting one type of deer to be able to have any size packs - why is it that they should have this ability and no other breeder of any breed can? How does this make sense - how do they determine that only having 4 together is better for them no matter what , how does this make my dogs better cared for and happier? not that it makes any difference because they don't have the exemption under the legislation anyway - what a mess.

[Steve]

far as euthanasia is concerned where possible and where it is in the animals best interest it needs to be done by a vet but some breeders live miles from a vet and sometimes it's much more humane to put the dog out of its misery. Obviously if a dog is dying and suffering ending its suffering quickly in the most humane and expedient way is necessary - problem is this is attempting to address breeders who do what ever they can to thin out the crowd that they no longer can use any way they can think of. Drowning, bashing, gassing etc which none of us surely would argue that this should be able to happen and if it does that breeders should be penalised for it - but if thats what they mean it needs to be better articulated and fine turned because it isnt covering that as is.

[espinay2]

I must say, I am pleased they seem to have at least listened in the first round (I know I put comments in myself and I see a few of them incorporated!). It is VERY important that people have their say here, so make sure you get your responses in!

[Linda K]

Total agreement with some of the more farcical things in it that are just baffling from a point of view of anyone who has owned more than 1 animal and knows anything about multiple animal husbandry (which clearly the authors did not) and they would be just funny if it was not all so serious. Even funnier is the things that are in the pound and shelter code, and yet being here as well, the shelter groups are in total outcry about it - yet I do not see them spending anywhere near the energy contacting the minster insisting their own code be reworded - like for instance the fact that cats and dogs being fed once a day -(other than pregnant / lactating / youngsters) - that is in their code too. And actually reviewing their code, there is no requirement for actual time listed for pounds and shelters to exercise any animal (and hunting / foraging food is considered exercise), and human contact is listed there as being desirable but not necessary - WHAT? AN animal could be put in a no kill shelter and not ever get human contact and it is fine under the Vic code for pounds and shelters - sounds like Moorook should move themselves here, and then they would have no issues at all. I also love the irony of Pets Haven demanding that the ability to feed offal be removed and insistance that only quality food be fed to animals, as otherwise the "cheap" option will be taken to buy crap food to save money. This from the people that are constantly running out of food themselves and continually begging for food donations on their facebook page, and insisting that all they get as donations is cheap tinned or dry food, as they do not have time to cut up meat nor do they want quality food,even though nutritionally what they feed is rubbish. Yep that makes sense

[Steve]

Its difficult to follow the path they have taken though isnt it? If their goal is to prevent dogs from suffering and ensure they are being cared for,if they are protecting the consumer and humans who work with dogs from some dreadful zoonotic horror then why demand a yearly health check but still want to take away the ability to make decisions based on that health check by the breeder and their vet ?

Why on earth would a government care how often a male dog had sex and why is it such a terrible thing for them to have sex if they are young or tpo often - what ever that maybe .Since when did any healthy male mammal suffer because they had sex more rather than less regularly?????

Male dogs are not alowed to have sex with two bitches at one time - if we assume its just poorly written and no one ever thought that some dogs had more than one penis and rather they are saying that a male dog cant have sex with more than one bitch per day - why?

Whats the difference between mating one bitch morning and evening or mating one bitch in the morning and another in the evening - is it about concerns the bitches may feel betrayed - seriously why are they even thinking that way?

I didnt even bother to address the purpose of saying that if a dog has sex for 60 consecutive days he has to have two days off because there is so much one could say about that - and difficult to address without simply saying "you idiots" do they know anything at all about the species reproductive systems?

Sheep farmers can have a single Ram go over his ewes over a couple of days and literally mate hundreds but male dogs cant just jump on an off and they simply cant get the deed done - show no interest until they have rested - why dont they know this?

The chances that any male dog would have sex for 60 consecutive days - considering how bitches cycle etc is about zero why put it in a code? How on earth can they enforce it or expect that any breeder reading it will take them seriously ? hope they leave it there as a constant reminder to us all of what a crazy place the dog world has become and how the nutters are running the show.

[Aphra]

I've put in a submission on behalf of our rescue group but there was so much to comment on. I think it is very unfair that small breeders should have to fulfil the same requirements as puppy farms.

I did object to the eurhanization paragraph, but I objected when the shelter code was up for review.

Happy to send anyone a copy if you want it - just pm me your email. It's not terribly enlightening though. I ran out of time.

[Steve]

I've put in a submission on behalf of our rescue group but there was so much to comment on. I think it is very unfair that small breeders should have to fulfil the same requirements as puppy farms.

I did object to the eurhanization paragraph, but I objected when the shelter code was up for review.

Happy to send anyone a copy if you want it - just pm me your email. It's not terribly enlightening though. I ran out of time.

Yes there was a lot to comment on but a lot of it is also covered in legislation which will over ride anything that's in the code anyway.

The issue of guarantees and pertaining to sales is covered by consumer trading laws ,things such as euthanasia and cruelty issues are covered in prevention of cruelty of animals legislation, who is and is not exempt ,how many dogs or fertile dogs before a particular requirement is on etc is covered in the legislation already with the DPI. If the object was to give those charged with enforcing it greater ability to do so they have made rather a mess of it and the in consistencies and difficulties it presents will give the RSPCA a bit of a pain I think. Even though there is an allowance for the minister to add in groups other than Vicdogs for exemption the working dog people many of whom dont belong to any group and have nothing in common but the fact they breed dogs classified as working if they are to be exempted this will need to be altered in the legislation.

That starts a whole new discussion because according to the listed criteria under the legislation for how any group can become accepted as an applicable org and be able to receive exemptions etc just because you happen to breed dogs of certain breeds doesnt cut it. If the minister simply ads in a group which breeds dogs used for hunting a species of deer they may be able to justify it if they allow exemption only to those who belong to their organisation if the organisation fits the listed criteria - but they knocked the MDBA back so far even though we fit the listed criteria and requirements and you cant just join the MDBA to get the exemptions as we screen them first - because they stated in writing that we didn't have enough members in Victoria - never said what enough is - and that we hadn't been in existence long enough - at that time we had been around for 7 years and they didnt say what long enough would be and - in writing - they said that "anyway all of our members can join Vicdogs". So now we have a Victorian state office, we have been in existence for 9 years and we have more members we are re applying - though all of our members can still join Vicdogs and everyone of our Victorian breeder are Vicdogs members including those breeding Australian Cobberdogs who dont own a recognised ANKC purebred dog but if all its going to take is a tick to add breeders of working dogs whether they belong to a group or not which fits the listed criteria and a group which has less members and has been in existence for less time than the MDBA would appear there is something pretty stinky going on in the state of Victoria and anti corruption agencies will need to take a closer look. Remember that these two are named as exempt from ever having to comply regardless of how many dogs they have under this code - Vicdogs are restricted to 10. Having said all that in NSW exemptions only cover the fees you pay on registrations you dont get to have the type of exemptions that Victoria affords to Vicdog members or any other org which may be listed in future so there is a high risk that people will join an applicable org for nothing more than the exemption - you can be a Vicdogs member without ever owning an ANKC purebred dog and if you breed cross bred dogs.

You cant say that Vicdogs members get exemption because the organisation ensures they comply with the code because they don't have to comply with any code until they own over 10 and then they are covered by the same processes as everyone else. Is any of it really about what is best for the dogs or is it simply about politics ? How is it that a first cross breeder who is a member of Vicdogs and owns 10 dogs is off the hook and someone doing the same thing who is not a Vicdogs member isn't - makes no sense to me. This is something that astounds me and it was the same when Clover Moore was trying to shut down sales of live animals from pet shops - they go through months of drafting it all and didn't know that Dogs NSW members can sell puppies to pet shops under their code and then they yell because they didnt support them - surely this was something that should have been covered in their research but because someone said Dogs NSW members cant sell to pet shops they went ahead with an expectation that they would get their backing.

Same thing is going on here - someone said feeding offal to dogs is bad can create a parasite issue and that breeders only feed it because its cheap - Oscars law submission says that breeders feed it because its cheap and all they needed to do was to do a bit of research to know its only offal that hasnt been inspected which is a risk and that its part of a species appropriate feeding program.If they really thought they needed to cover it in a code all they needed to say was no offal that hasn't been inspected and sold via a human butchery - or that if a breeder feeds offal that's mot checked that they need to ensure worming for hydatid is included in their worming program which most of us do anyway because its in the usual worming preps. Politics.

Why is a government involved in reproductive issues for dogs and cats and not sheep, cattle, pigs,horses etc ? Politics.

In the introduction they forget to allocate which bits pertain to a rearing establishment so it would appear that a rearing establishment is off the hook and isn't covered under the code - though I don't think that was the intent.

So when you stand back from it a bit and begin to question why and if you apply the specific question to every part of it " how does this ensure dogs have a better quality of life and that less dogs suffer" what they have taken as factual or even possible without checking and the bias within it - its just straight up politics. Not real posh for the dogs at all. In all honesty it makes screaming fools of them. Perhaps they got confused about echidnas and dogs when they said dogs should only mate with one female at a time though even though an echidna has 4 heads on their penis I dont think they can do that either http://www.matt-gibson.org/the-worlds-strangest-penis-found-in-tasmania-video/

We wont even go near how many are likely to comply with some of it this code and how its not possible to police.

[Aphra]

To do the government justice, they were between a rock and a hard place with this legislation. They were under a lot of public pressure to do "something" about puppy farms, while recognising that whatever they did wasn't going to be enough.

The issue for me is that they haven't defined the problem they're trying to fix and they're relying really heavily on the Oscar's Law contingent who wouldn't know an evidence base if it rose up in air and bit them on the bum.

I think the RIS has changed a bit from the first one - or I might just not have found the phrase - the last one said quite clearly that the government had no idea how many commercial breeders there were in Victoria. It means that they don't know what the problem is they're trying to solve.

If it's "illegal" or inhumane animal breeding there is already anti-cruelty legislation and council regulations and planning laws to deal with them. If the issue is commercial pet breeding, as far as I can see there is no real evidence about the quality of pets they produce. I'm not apologising for them, but there's no research we only have anecdote.

I am really dubious about the existence of all the horrible puppy farms that Oscar's Law bases itself on. The photos used on the OL site are from the puppy farm raid Deb Tranter performed several years ago. The next lot of photos came from the raid in SA and Oscar's Law travelled to SA to be part of that process, even though it was being organised by the RSPCA.

I"m not saying there are no horrible puppy farms, but I doubt there are anywhere near as many of them as OL says there are.

The big commercial breeders are legal - short of making pet breeding illegal altogether the government can really only regulate them better. The draft code is so nit picky, detailed, complex and inconsistent that it will be near impossible to enforce anyway. The RIS states that the current code isn't enforced, but claims that is to do with short comings in the code. I'd suggest its lack of will and lack of resources.

My biggest issue is with the evaluation section of the draft code because it's nonsense.

This is what I wrote about the evaluation.

The RIS lacks an evidence base (for example, the current number of commercial pet breeders in Victoria) and any clear evaluation criteria for the effectiveness of the code – the evaluation provisions given are unworkable. For example, unless a microchip provides the ability to trace all owners of an animal from birth and record that against veterinary records and other health or behaviour information for that animal, and compare that to a non-existent baseline – there is no way to evaluate the effectiveness of the code."

[mita]

If it's "illegal" or inhumane animal breeding there is already anti-cruelty legislation and council regulations and planning laws to deal with them. If the issue is commercial pet breeding, as far as I can see there is no real evidence about the quality of pets they produce. I'm not apologising for them, but there's no research we only have anecdote.

I am really dubious about the existence of all the horrible puppy farms that Oscar's Law bases itself on. The photos used on the OL site are from the puppy farm raid Deb Tranter performed several years ago. The next lot of photos came from the raid in SA and Oscar's Law travelled to SA to be part of that process, even though it was being organised by the RSPCA.

I"m not saying there are no horrible puppy farms, but I doubt there are anywhere near as many of them as OL says there are.

The big commercial breeders are legal - short of making pet breeding illegal altogether the government can really only regulate them better. The draft code is so nit picky, detailed, complex and inconsistent that it will be near impossible to enforce anyway. The RIS states that the current code isn't enforced, but claims that is to do with short comings in the code. I'd suggest its lack of will and lack of resources.

Every time I've posted my objection about large scale commercial puppy farming being linked with more risk for later health & behaviour problems, I've made it clear I'm referring to rigorous & recent US research. My objection is not based on anecdotal evidence, If it were, I'd say so.

it's based on research. The factors involved are related to the large numbers in one location... & have been teased down to specifics. Oddly, the Draft Code includes one of the key research papers in their own list of References, but the authors don't appear to have read it or can't understand it.

No one is asking to make commercial breeding of puppies illegal... what I'm asking is that any model of operation be based on sound research, not simply on commercial considerations. I've even posted before that the research would suggest they look for different models of operation so that welfare of the dogs/puppies... & the ultimate best interest of pet buyers .... are paramount.

Other jurisdictions have handled the matter with far better accord with research. Which is why I posed the amendments to the UK laws on breeding dogs. They show they're light years ahead in grasping the research & putting it into practice. They even demonstrate a thorough grasp of socialisation which research has identified as a key variable .... of both mother dogs & puppies. Even the breeding laws in Ireland show a high level of awareness (yes, I've posted that reference before, too). The Victorian Draft Code scores zero on this.

I can't speak for Victoria, but puppy farming remains a huge problem in Q'ld. It's perfectly legal to have huge numbers of dogs on one location in areas designated for primary industries. Cruelty laws only kick in when the conditions are horrific. But the research base is clear.....huge numbers of dogs on one location (often with adequate but minimal care) is linked with much higher risk for health & behavioral problems. Both AWL Qld & RSPCA Qld are aware that there's a huge gap between what cruelty laws can cover & what should be minimum but well-evidenced standards for breeding puppies.

Linda, your comment in this thread, had me cheering. Spot on. I'd only add the key variable of socialization along with the multiple animal husbandry:

Total agreement with some of the more farcical things in it that are just baffling from a point of view of anyone who has owned more than 1 animal and knows anything about multiple animal husbandry (which clearly the authors did not) and they would be just funny if it was not all so serious.

Edited August 14, 2013 by mita